One more.
John L. Broughton
2silverhon...@gmail.com
www.wb9vgj.us
On 6/8/2025 12:50 AM, Jim Brown via wsjt-devel wrote:
On 6/7/2025 3:54 PM, Tom Hauer via wsjt-devel wrote:
I am astonished at how anyone with such a lack of knowledge and
understanding could even consider criticism of someone who has
contributed so much, without asking for anything in return, to our
hobby and to the capabilities of radio communication.
It's disappointing that you would attack me personally rather than
respond to the issues I've raised. I'm far from ignorant of the
issues, active on 6M and HF since 1956, active With multiple WSJT
modes since 2011. I contest primarily with CW and RTTY, but also SSB.
As a member of the ARRL's Contest Advisory Committee, I was quite
actively involved in setting up ARRL's Digital contest, and have been
quite supportive of it. I don't do FT8/FT4 contesting myself, because
it doesn't turn my crank.
Lack of knowledge and understanding? My education was BSEE, and I've
taught it. I've been a contributor to the ARRL Handbook since 2011,
the Antenna Book since 2014, and to both editions of N0AX's ARRL Book
On Grounding and Bonding. My website, k9yc.com, is full of tutorials
on many aspects of ham radio. There are more than 200,000 QSOs in my
log since moving to California in 2006. You're my log once. My work on
common mode chokes for the MF and HF bands, first published in 2008,
and extending in 2018, is groundbreaking. In 2020, I was honored with
the ARRL Technical Excellence Award, which carried a nice honorarium
that I donated to the NCDXF, an organization that financially supports
DXpeditions. I was elected a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society
on the basis of important technical work I'd done advancing the state
of that art.
I have simply raised a major issue with how the WSJT design team has
made ONE mistake. That is NOT an attack, it is raising an issue that
needs to be addressed. That's called positive criticism. In my first
post on the topic, several days ago, I observed how choice of such a
high frequency for 6M FT8 contributed to the demise of CW on the band.
of NOT because it was FT8, but because the chosen operating frequency
was so high in the band. In a subsequent post, I observed that the
chosen 40M FT4 frequency interfered with several groups of users, that
I raised the issue when FT4 was in beta, and was ignored. Again,
positive criticism, and in time to have corrected the bad call.
When people stop attacking ME without responding to the ISSUE, I will
stop responding. I didn't intend this as a thread. I was calling
attention to an issue that can easily be corrected by simply setting
new standard carrier frequencies in the upcoming releases of the
software. And I'd be happy to help write words to users to explain why.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
